DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or
under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 4-6 contain photographs; however, photographs are not the only practicable medium to show the depicted elements, see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1).
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 2-3 contain lettering that is too small, see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3).
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-13 contain reference characters, reference character lines; and figure numbers (i.e., “Fig. 1” for figure 1) that are not sufficiently dense and dark, see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 36, 59, 64-65, 69-70, and 72 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 36, line 1: “at least one visual” should be inserted before “stimulus”;
in claim 59, line 1: “Apparatus” should be “An apparatus”;
in claim 64, line 2: “at least one” should be inserted before “visual”;
in claim 65, line 2: “at least one” should be inserted before “visual”;
in claim 69, line 2: “at least one visual” should be inserted before “stimulus”;
in claim 70, line 2: “at least one visual” should be inserted before “stimulus”; and
in claim 72, line 1: “wherein the” should be “wherein” (the is deleted).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-27, 31, 33, 35-37, 40, 43-45, 59-60, 62-67, and 69-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 37 recites “determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive, for at least one eye, based on the at least one response from the test subject” in lines 12-14. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. For the same reasons, the features claimed are new matter. In this case, the claim states that the lowest intensity of light the test subject is able to perceive (or threshold) may be determined from just one response (BRI of at least one response). The specification details that the lowest intensity threshold is determined based on several responses, in relation to various flash luminance levels, on what light can and cannot be perceived by the subject (see specification pg. 4). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
Claims 40, 43-44, and 72 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 37.
Claim 59 recites “a processor for determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive based on the at least one response from the test subject” in lines 15-17. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. For the same reasons, the features claimed are new matter. In this case, the claim states that the lowest intensity of light the test subject is able to perceive (or threshold) may be determined from just one response (BRI of at least one response). The specification details that the lowest intensity threshold is determined based on several responses, in relation to various flash luminance levels, on what light can and cannot be perceived by the subject (see specification pg. 4). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
Claims 60, 62-67, and 69-70 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 59.
Claim 71 recites “determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive based on the at least one response from the test subject” in lines 9-11. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. For the same reasons, the features claimed are new matter. In this case, the claim states that the lowest intensity of light the test subject is able to perceive (or threshold) may be determined from just one response (BRI of at least one response). The specification details that the lowest intensity threshold is determined based on several responses, in relation to various flash luminance levels, on what light can and cannot be perceived by the subject (see specification pg. 4). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
Claims 26-27, 31, 33, 35-36, and 45 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 71.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-27, 31, 33, 35-37, 40, 43-45, 59-60, 62-67, and 69-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the delivery” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a delivery” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the delivery” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a delivery” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 27, 31, 33, and 35-36 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 71.
Claim 27 recites “the single controller is configured to adjust at least one of intensity and duration of the at least one visual stimulus and the background light” in lines 1-4. It is not clear whether the “intensity and duration” are the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “an intensity and a duration” in claim 71, line 5. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the lack of definite article “the” suggests that they are different. Furthermore, if the recitations are the same/related, then the intensity and duration are only related to the “at least one visual stimulus”, and it is not clear how the intensity and duration relate to the background light. These inconsistencies render claim 27 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the color” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a color” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the color” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a color” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “the at least one visual stimulus is delivered simultaneously to both eyes of the test subject, with one eye receiving a stimulus of a first intensity and first duration and the second eye receiving a stimulus of a second intensity and second duration” in lines 1-5. This recitation presents multiple scenarios. In the scenario in which there is only one visual stimulus presented, and the first/second intensity and duration are the same (i.e., the same stimulus), there is no issue. However, if the first/second intensity and duration are different, there is an inconsistency between the one stimulus presented, and the two stimuli required in this scenario. This inconsistency renders claim 35 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the second eye” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a second eye” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the full field of vision” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a full field of vision” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “the lowest intensity” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a lowest intensity” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 recites “determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive, for at least one eye, based on the at least one response from the test subject” in lines 12-14. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. In this case, the claim states that the lowest intensity of light the test subject is able to perceive (or threshold) may be determined from just one response (BRI of at least one response). The specification details that the lowest intensity threshold is determined based on several responses, in relation to various flash luminance levels, on what light can and cannot be perceived by the subject (see specification pg. 4). It is not clear how a threshold could be determined with only one response. The inconsistency between what is claimed (the lowest intensity threshold determined from only one response) and what appears to be required for the pulse wave estimation (the lowest intensity threshold determined from multiple responses at various luminous levels) renders claim 37 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 40, 43-44, and 72 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 37.
Claim 44 recites “the stimulus” in line 1, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitations “a first visual stimulus” in claim 37, line 4, and “a second visual stimulus” in claim 37, line 5. The indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different, but the context of the claim suggests that they are related. If the recitations are different, there is a lack of antecedent basis and the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). The relationship among these recitations should be made clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “the full field of vision” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a full field of vision” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “the full field of vision” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a full field of vision” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 recites the limitation “the lowest intensity” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a lowest intensity” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 recites “a processor for determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive based on the at least one response from the test subject” in lines 15-17. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. In this case, the claim states that the lowest intensity of light the test subject is able to perceive (or threshold) may be determined from just one response (BRI of at least one response). The specification details that the lowest intensity threshold is determined based on several responses, in relation to various flash luminance levels, on what light can and cannot be perceived by the subject (see specification pg. 4). It is not clear how a threshold could be determined with only one response. The inconsistency between what is claimed (the lowest intensity threshold determined from only one response) and what appears to be required for the pulse wave estimation (the lowest intensity threshold determined from multiple responses at various luminous levels) renders claim 59 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 60, 62-67, and 69-70 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 59.
Claim 60 recites the limitation “the full field of vision” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a full field of vision” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 60 recites “delivering a plurality of flashes of light, wherein the intensity varies between each of the flashes of light, and further wherein the difference in the intensity between two flashes of light is different from the difference in the intensity between two other flashes of light” in lines 15-19, which is grammatically awkward and unclear. There is confusion as to the relationship (i.e., are the terms the same as, related to, or different from each other) between “the difference” in lines 17 and 18. Also, both recitations appear to lack antecedent basis, if the recitations are not the same/related. Furthermore, the relationship between the three recitations of “the intensity” in lines 15-16, 17, and 18-19 is not clear (i.e., are the terms the same as, related to, or different from each other). These inconsistencies render claim 60 indefinite.
Claim 60 recites “delivering a plurality of flashes of light, wherein the duration varies between each of the flashes of light, and further wherein the difference in the duration between two flashes of light is different from the difference in the duration between two other flashes of light” in lines 20-24, which is grammatically awkward and unclear. There is confusion as to the relationship (i.e., are the terms the same as, related to, or different from each other) between “the difference” in lines 22 and 23. Also, both recitations appear to lack antecedent basis, if the recitations are not the same/related. Furthermore, the relationship between the three recitations of “the duration” in lines 20-21, 22, and 23-24 is not clear (i.e., are the terms the same as, related to, or different from each other). These inconsistencies render claim 60 indefinite.
Claim 62 recites “wherein the stimulator comprises one from the group consisting of a ganzfeld bowl stimulator and a flash paddle”. This limitation appears to invoke a Markush grouping, see MPEP § 2117. However, the use of the term “comprises” makes the Markush grouping open, which is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim, see MPEP § 2173.05(h). Amending the recitation to recite “wherein the stimulator is selected from the group consisting of a ganzfeld bowl stimulator and a flash paddle” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 66 recites “a first stimulus” in lines 1-2 and “a second stimulus” in lines 2-3, but it is not clear if these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “at least one visual stimulus” in claim 59, line 4. The indefinite articles “a” suggest they are different, but the context of the claim suggests that they are related. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). The relationship among these recitations should be made clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 67 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 66.
Claim 67 recites “a first stimulator” in line 2 and “a second stimulator” in line 3, but it is not clear if these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a stimulator” in claim 59, line 4. The indefinite articles “a” suggest they are different, but the context of the claim suggests that they are related. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). The relationship among these recitations should be made clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 69 recites the limitation “the full field of vision” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a full field of vision” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 70 recites the limitation “the full field of vision” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a full field of vision” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 71 recites the limitation “the lowest intensity” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a lowest intensity” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 71 recites “determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive based on the at least one response from the test subject” in lines 9-11. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. In this case, the claim states that the lowest intensity of light the test subject is able to perceive (or threshold) may be determined from just one response (BRI of at least one response). The specification details that the lowest intensity threshold is determined based on several responses, in relation to various flash luminance levels, on what light can and cannot be perceived by the subject (see specification pg. 4). It is not clear how a threshold could be determined with only one response. The inconsistency between what is claimed (the lowest intensity threshold determined from only one response) and what appears to be required for the pulse wave estimation (the lowest intensity threshold determined from multiple responses at various luminous levels) renders claim 71 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 26-27, 31, 33, 35-36, and 45 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 71.
Claim 72 recites the limitation “the full field of vision” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to recite “a full field of vision” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 26-27, 33, 35-37, 43-45, 59-60, 64-67, and 70-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Monhart et al. (US Patent Application 2019/0142270), hereinafter Monhart.
Regarding Claim 71, Monhart teaches methods and systems for testing a visual field of a subject utilizing visual stimuli displayed on a left and right display region for the left and right eyes of the subject (see abstract and Fig. 3). Monhart teaches a method for performing a full-field stimulus threshold (FST) test on a test subject (see abstract and Fig. 3, see also ¶[0050]-[0055], the threshold testing of the subject’s contrast sensitivity), the method comprising:
delivering at least one visual stimulus to at least one eye of the test subject (¶[0027] the display screen 320 for displaying stimulus 326 on the display region 322 for the subject’s left eye 306, and for displaying stimulus 328 on the display region 324 for the subject’s right eye 308, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens, ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing; Fig. 3),
wherein the least one visual stimulus comprises a flash of light having an intensity and a duration (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing, the various intensities/luminance levels described, it is inherent that the light based stimulus and background light would have an intensity and duration; Fig. 3);
obtaining at least one response from the test subject, wherein the at least one response corresponds to whether the test subject perceived the at least one visual stimulus (¶[0031] the response-capturing device 330 for tracking the subject responses to the stimuli, whether the subject observed the stimuli or not; Fig. 3); and
determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive based on the at least one response from the test subject (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject, as the intensity is being adjusted, the lowest contrast different corresponds to the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive, ¶[0032]-[0033] the subject responses from the response-capturing device are sent to the processor 316 for evaluation; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 26, Monhart teaches the method of claim 71 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the at least one visual stimulus is delivered with background light (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject; Fig. 3), and further wherein a single controller is used to control the delivery of the at least one visual stimulus and the delivery of the background light (¶[0027] the processor 316 that controls the stimulus presented on the display screen 320, which would include the stimuli and background light).
Regarding Claim 27, Monhart teaches the method of claim 26 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the single controller is configured to adjust at least one of intensity and duration of the at least one visual stimulus and the background light (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the stimuli and background light intensity/luminance level may be adjusted, ¶[0027] the processor 316 that controls the stimulus presented on the display screen 320, which would include the stimuli and background light, as the stimuli is generated by the processor 316, the intensity and duration would necessarily by generated/controlled by the processor 316 in order to generate the stimuli; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 33, Monhart teaches the method of claim 26 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the color of the background light is the same as the color of the flash of light (¶[0050]-[0055] the background light may have an RBB value of {20, 20, 20} and the stimulus may have an initial value of {20, 20, 20}; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 35, Monhart teaches the method of claim 26 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the at least one visual stimulus is delivered simultaneously to both eyes of the test subject (¶[0026] both eyes can be recorded by the eye sensor 302 simultaneously, see also Fig. 3, the stimulus is displayed for both eyes at the same time), with one eye receiving a stimulus of a first intensity and first duration and the second eye receiving a stimulus of a second intensity and second duration (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing, the various intensities/luminance levels described, it is inherent that the light based stimulus and background light would have an intensity and duration; Fig. 3). A difference between the stimuli 326/328 supplied between the left and right eyes of the subject in Monhart is not specified; however, the claim does not require that the first and second intensity/duration are different. Therefore, as Monhart teaches to provide stimuli and background light to each eye, each inherently having an intensity and duration, Monhart teaches the elements required by claim 35.
Regarding Claim 36, Monhart teaches the method of claim 26 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the stimulus is delivered to less than the full field of vision of the test subject (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject; Fig. 3). In this case, there are two things being presented to the subject, the stimulus (i.e., the at least one visual stimulus) and the background light (see claim 26). As the at least one visual stimulus is delivered with the background light, the background light is not interpreted to be the stimulus itself. As the background light and the at least one visual stimulus are being delivered to the subject at the same time, the at least one visual stimulus cannot be delivered to the full field of vision of the subject, as some of the subject’s visual field is the background light. This is taught by Monhart (see generally ¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055], the visual stimulus and the background light presented; Fig. 3). Therefore, Monhart teaches that the stimulus is delivered to less than the full field of vision of the test subject as required by claim 36.
Alternatively and/or additionally, the specification of the present application defines full field as comprising “the light stimulator is positioned directly in front of both eyes of the subject and stimulates the entire visual field of the test subject's vision (i.e., the stimulation is "full field")” (see specification pg. 6 ¶2 though pg. 7). As Monhart teaches the differing location point based stimulation (see Figs. 3 and 5-6), and does not utilize a light stimulator positioned directly in front of both eyes, Monhart does not teach to stimulate the full field of vision of the test subject. Therefore, Monhart would necessarily teach to stimulate less than the full field of vision of the test subject, as that is the only other possibility.
Regarding Claim 37, Monhart teaches methods and systems for testing a visual field of a subject utilizing visual stimuli displayed on a left and right display region for the left and right eyes of the subject (see abstract and Fig. 3). Monhart teaches a method for performing a full-field stimulus threshold (FST) test on a test subject (see abstract and Fig. 3, see also ¶[0050]-[0055], the threshold testing of the subject’s contrast sensitivity), the method comprising:
delivering a first visual stimulus to a first eye of the test subject (¶[0027] the display screen 320 for displaying stimulus 326 on the display region 322 for the subject’s left eye 306, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens, ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing; Fig. 3) and a second visual stimulus to a second eye of the test subject (¶[0027] the display screen 320 for displaying stimulus 328 on the display region 324 for the subject’s right eye 308, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens, ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing; Fig. 3),
wherein the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus are provided by different stimulators (¶[0027] the left/right display regions 322/324, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens for the stimulus; Fig. 3);
obtaining at least one response from the test subject, wherein the at least one response corresponds to whether the test subject perceived the first visual stimulus or the second visual stimulus (¶[0031] the response-capturing device 330 for tracking the subject responses to the stimuli, whether the subject observed the stimuli or not; Fig. 3); and
determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive, for at least one eye, based on the at least one response from the test subject (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject, as the intensity is being adjusted, the lowest contrast different corresponds to the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive, ¶[0032]-[0033] the subject responses from the response-capturing device are sent to the processor 316 for evaluation; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 43, Monhart teaches the method of claim 37 as stated above. Monhart further teaches at least one of the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus are delivered with background light (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject; Fig. 3), and further wherein a single controller is used to control the delivery of the at least one visual stimulus and the delivery of the background light (¶[0027] the processor 316 that controls the stimulus presented on the display screen 320, which would include the stimuli and background light).
Regarding Claim 44, Monhart teaches the method of claim 37 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the stimulus is delivered to less than the full field of vision of the test subject (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject; Fig. 3). In this case, there are two things being presented to the subject, the stimulus (i.e., the at least one visual stimulus) and the background light. As the at least one visual stimulus is delivered with the background light, the background light is not interpreted to be the stimulus itself. As the background light and the at least one visual stimulus are being delivered to the subject at the same time, the at least one visual stimulus cannot be delivered to the full field of vision of the subject, as some of the subject’s visual field is the background light. This is taught by Monhart (see generally ¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055], the visual stimulus and the background light presented; Fig. 3). Therefore, Monhart teaches that the stimulus is delivered to less than the full field of vision of the test subject as required by claim 44.
Alternatively and/or additionally, the specification of the present application defines full field as comprising “the light stimulator is positioned directly in front of both eyes of the subject and stimulates the entire visual field of the test subject's vision (i.e., the stimulation is "full field")” (see specification pg. 6 ¶2 though pg. 7). As Monhart teaches the differing location point based stimulation (see Figs. 3 and 5-6), and does not utilize a light stimulator positioned directly in front of both eyes, Monhart does not teach to stimulate the full field of vision of the test subject. Therefore, Monhart would necessarily teach to stimulate less than the full field of vision of the test subject, as that is the only other possibility.
Regarding Claim 45, Monhart teaches the method of claim 71 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the stimulus is delivered to less than the full field of vision of the test subject (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject; Fig. 3). In this case, there are two things being presented to the subject, the stimulus (i.e., the at least one visual stimulus) and the background light. As the at least one visual stimulus is delivered with the background light, the background light is not interpreted to be the stimulus itself. As the background light and the at least one visual stimulus are being delivered to the subject at the same time, the at least one visual stimulus cannot be delivered to the full field of vision of the subject, as some of the subject’s visual field is the background light. This is taught by Monhart (see generally ¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055], the visual stimulus and the background light presented; Fig. 3). Therefore, Monhart teaches that the stimulus is delivered to less than the full field of vision of the test subject as required by claim 45.
Alternatively and/or additionally, the specification of the present application defines full field as comprising “the light stimulator is positioned directly in front of both eyes of the subject and stimulates the entire visual field of the test subject's vision (i.e., the stimulation is "full field")” (see specification pg. 6 ¶2 though pg. 7). As Monhart teaches the differing location point based stimulation (see Figs. 3 and 5-6), and does not utilize a light stimulator positioned directly in front of both eyes, Monhart does not teach to stimulate the full field of vision of the test subject. Therefore, Monhart would necessarily teach to stimulate less than the full field of vision of the test subject, as that is the only other possibility.
Regarding Claim 59, Monhart teaches methods and systems for testing a visual field of a subject utilizing visual stimuli displayed on a left and right display region for the left and right eyes of the subject (see abstract and Fig. 3). Monhart teaches an apparatus for performing a full-field stimulus threshold (FST) test on a test subject, (see abstract and Fig. 3, see also ¶[0050]-[0055], the threshold testing of the subject’s contrast sensitivity), the apparatus comprising:
a stimulator for delivering at least one visual stimulus to at least one eye of the test subject (¶[0027] the display screen 320 for displaying stimulus 326 on the display region 322 for the subject’s left eye 306, and for displaying stimulus 328 on the display region 324 for the subject’s right eye 308, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens, ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing; Fig. 3),
wherein the least one visual stimulus comprises at least one flash of light, wherein the at least one flash of light has an intensity, a duration and a color (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing, the various intensities/luminance levels described, alongside the changing color, it is inherent that the light based stimulus and background light would have an intensity, color, and duration; Fig. 3);
a controller for controlling the intensity, the duration and the color of the at least one flash of light (¶[0027] the processor 316 that generates and controls the stimulus presented on the display screen 320, as the stimuli is generated by the processor 316, the intensity, duration, and color would necessarily by generated/controlled by the processor 316 in order to generate the stimuli, ¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the stimuli and background light intensity/luminance level and color may be adjusted; Fig. 3);
a test subject input device for obtaining at least one response from the test subject, wherein the at least one response corresponds to whether the test subject perceived the at least one visual stimulus (¶[0031] the response-capturing device 330 for tracking the subject responses to the stimuli, whether the subject observed the stimuli or not; Fig. 3); and
a processor for determining the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive based on the at least one response from the test subject (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject, as the intensity is being adjusted, the lowest contrast different corresponds to the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive, ¶[0032]-[0033] the subject responses from the response-capturing device are sent to the processor 316 for evaluation; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 60, Monhart teaches the apparatus of claim 59 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the controller is configured to perform at least one from the group consisting of: adjusting the intensity of the flash of light over the duration of the flash of light; delivering a plurality of flashes of light; delivering at least one flash of light with background light (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject, as the intensity is being adjusted, the lowest contrast different corresponds to the lowest intensity of light that the test subject is able to perceive; Fig. 3); delivering a first visual stimulus to a first eye of the test subject and a second visual stimulus to a second eye of the test subject, wherein the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus are different; delivering the least one visual stimulus to less than the full field of vision of the test subject; delivering a plurality of flashes of light, wherein the intensity varies between each of the flashes of light, and further wherein the difference in the intensity between two flashes of light is different from the difference in the intensity between two other flashes of light; and delivering a plurality of flashes of light, wherein the duration varies between each of the flashes of light, and further wherein the difference in the duration between two flashes of light is different from the difference in the duration between two other flashes of light.
Regarding Claim 64, Monhart teaches the apparatus of claim 59 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the visual stimulus is delivered to one eye of the test subject (¶[0027] the display screen 320 for displaying stimulus 326 on the display region 322 for the subject’s left eye 306, and for displaying stimulus 328 on the display region 324 for the subject’s right eye 308, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens, ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing; Fig. 3). Here, as the visual stimuli are each presented to one eye, Monhart meets the element of claim 64.
Regarding Claim 65, Monhart teaches the apparatus of claim 59 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the visual stimulus is simultaneously delivered to both eyes of the test subject (¶[0026] both eyes can be recorded by the eye sensor 302 simultaneously, see also Fig. 3, the stimulus is displayed for both eyes at the same time).
Regarding Claim 66, Monhart teaches the apparatus of claim 65 as stated above. Monhart further teaches a first stimulus is delivered to one of eye of the test subject (¶[0027] the display screen 320 for displaying stimulus 326 on the display region 322 for the subject’s left eye 306, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens, ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing; Fig. 3) and a second stimulus is delivered to the other eye of the test subject (¶[0027] the display screen 320 for displaying stimulus 328 on the display region 324 for the subject’s right eye 308, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens, ¶[0050]-[0055] the visual stimulus and the background light displayed to the eyes in the threshold testing; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 67, Monhart teaches the apparatus of claim 66 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the apparatus comprises a first stimulator for delivering the first stimulus and a second stimulator for delivering the second stimulus (¶[0027] the left/right display regions 322/324, ¶[0030] there may be a single display screen, or multiple display screens; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 70, Monhart teaches the apparatus of claim 59 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the stimulus is delivered to less than the full field of vision of the test subject (¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055] the threshold determination based on the visual stimuli and background light presented to detect/determine a threshold at which a contrast difference becomes visible/perceivable for the subject; Fig. 3). In this case, there are two things being presented to the subject, the stimulus (i.e., the at least one visual stimulus) and the background light. As the at least one visual stimulus is delivered with the background light, the background light is not interpreted to be the stimulus itself. As the background light and the at least one visual stimulus are being delivered to the subject at the same time, the at least one visual stimulus cannot be delivered to the full field of vision of the subject, as some of the subject’s visual field is the background light. This is taught by Monhart (see generally ¶[0026] and ¶[0050]-[0055], the visual stimulus and the background light presented; Fig. 3). Therefore, Monhart teaches that the stimulus is delivered to less than the full field of vision of the test subject as required by claim 70.
Alternatively and/or additionally, the specification of the present application defines full field as comprising “the light stimulator is positioned directly in front of both eyes of the subject and stimulates the entire visual field of the test subject's vision (i.e., the stimulation is "full field")” (see specification pg. 6 ¶2 though pg. 7). As Monhart teaches the differing location point based stimulation (see Figs. 3 and 5-6), and does not utilize a light stimulator positioned directly in front of both eyes, Monhart does not teach to stimulate the full field of vision of the test subject. Therefore, Monhart would necessarily teach to stimulate less than the full field of vision of the test subject, as that is the only other possibility.
Regarding Claim 72, Monhart teaches the method of claim 37 as stated above. Monhart further teaches the at least one of the first visual stim